The Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is meeting this evening. For more details, click on the Land Use Report link on the KUSP website.

At least three items on the agenda relate directly to long-term water supply issues, and thus to land use. “Land use,” as a category, really must include not only a consideration of what is often called “zoning” (a designation of the specific uses that can be made of specific parcels of land), but must also encompass a plan for how those land uses will be supported by adequate and sustainable water supplies, and how the growth and development contemplated by the land use designations will relate to transportation and housing.

This weekday bulletin is called the “Land Use Report,” and that means it will inevitably focus not only on land use designations, but also on housing, transportation, and water.

This evening, the Board of Directors of the Water Management District will be talking about the District’s overall strategic plan, and will also consider a draft “Integrated Regional Water Management Plan” that encompasses areas beyond the District. Finally, the Board will talk about desalination projects. All the documents are online, and I hope that you will track them down, and evaluate what the District is planning to do. Water is central to our land use planning efforts, and land use decisions will have a determinative effect on our future.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

MPWMD Website
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/

Agenda for July 16, 2007 Meeting
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/
boardpacket/2007/20070716/0716agenda.htm

Item on District Strategic Plan
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/
2007/20070716/07/item7_exh7a.htm

On August 21st, the State Water Resources Control Board will hold a pre-hearing conference on a proposal to divert water from the Carmel River, and to store that water in the Seaside groundwater aquifer. To find out more, visit the KUSP website. If you’d like to participate in the hearing, you need to give the Water Board notice. That notice is due on or before July 23rd.

Water management is complex, and the complexities are both legal and operational. Legally, the Water Management District needs official approval to divert water from one location to another. The assumption in water law is that water will be used where it manifests itself (in this case in the Carmel River). Taking water out of the River, and conveying it somewhere else, is not something that can be done without prior review and approval. On the technical side, taking water that has a known quality and quantity, and pumping it underground, could result in the loss of the water (if the aquifer lets it drain away), or in a degradation of the quality of the water (for instance if the aquifer is affected by seawater intrusion).

The District’s groundwater storage proposal, in other words, is actually a “big deal” in terms of water management, and it’s an integral part of the District’s plan to provide a long-term, reliable water supply to the Monterey Peninsula. The upcoming hearing is going to be very important for all Monterey Peninsula residents.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

State Water Resources Control Board Website
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/

Public Hearing Notice
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/Hearings/
docs/carmelriver_final_notice.pdf

MPWMD Website
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/

Agenda for July 16, 2007 Meeting
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/
boardpacket/2007/20070716/0716agenda.htm

Item on District Strategic Plan
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/
2007/20070716/07/item7_exh7a.htm

Our current patterns of land use are associated with a transportation system that is overwhelmingly based on the use of the individual motor vehicle. State level analyses indicate that about 40% of our current greenhouse gas emissions come from the land use/transportation sector. If we are serious about cutting back, we’re going to need to change how we grow and develop in fundamental ways.

But are we, in fact, “serious” about making the fundamental changes we need to make, to address the global warming crisis? That remains to be seen. If we’re “serious,” we need to take action on the state, local, regional, and individual level.

As you might have heard, at least some members of the professional staff of the Air Resources Board believe that the Governor is “talking a good game” on global warming, but that he isn’t really willing to do anything to upset business. There’s a question whether the Governor is actually “serious” about global warming.

On the individual level, I think that more and more of us are “serious.” But we know that each one of us is a small part of the solution, so being “serious” individually isn’t going to be enough.

What about locally and regionally? A significant debate about that is now taking place in the City of Santa Cruz, since the City is moving towards a new staff position that would try to maximize local and regional efforts to reduce global warming emissions. If you haven’t been following the discussion, click on the Land Use Report link on the KUSP website to get some references.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz Sentinel articles on proposed City of Santa Cruz Global Warming “Czar”
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/
2007/July/12/local/stories/01local.htm

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/
2007/July/13/local/stories/01local.htm

Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial, opposing a new Global Warming Coordinator position in City government
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/
2007/July/13/edit/stories/01edit.htm

Gary Patton Letter to the Editor on proposed City of Santa Cruz position
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/
2007/July/14/edit/let.htm

Environmental Caucus of the State Democratic Party
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/

Agenda of July 14, 2007 Environmental Caucus meeting
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/

Long time listeners know about the Coyote Valley, an area located within the city limits of the City of San Jose. A number of years ago, Cisco Systems proposed developing the Coyote Valley as its “business campus.” 20,000 jobs, I think it was, but not one house!

The Cisco proposal would have “exported” both housing demand and traffic to adjoining areas, while capturing the revenue-producing business opportunities for the City of San Jose. In fact, this is not an unusual objective for local governments as they make land use decisions. Fiscal pressures on local governments to minimize new service costs, while increasing new tax revenues, result in sprawling patterns of development that maximize commuting, and that destroy the maximum amount of open space and farmland.

Most recently, the City of San Jose has been developing a new plan for the Coyote Valley, which makes a much greater effort to put jobs and housing (and other uses) together. But particularly in view of concerns about global warming, it’s doubtful whether the new plan is really the right solution either. Speaking to a meeting hosted by the Planning and Conservation League last Friday, Assembly Member Jim Beall, who represents a significant part of San Jose, talked passionately about the need to save open space, and put the new housing right downtown, within the existing urban core. That did sound just about right to me!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of San Jose Coyote Valley Website
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/index.html

Mercury Editorial Comment and News Coverage on Recent Coyote Valley Planning Decisions

• http://www.mercurynews.com/search/
  ci_6230675?nclick_check=1
• http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6239232
• http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5974362
• http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6230720

Residential developers are doing pretty well, though the big money does not really come from the manufacture of the new homes. Here are the costs typically involved in building a new home (and this is not necessarily an exhaustive list):

• Design and engineering costs
• Materials costs
• Labor costs
• Land costs
• Costs of borrowed money
• Permit processing costs
• Infrastructure costs

These costs add up. As we know, when the costs are added up, the total makes the price of a new home unaffordable to a family with an average or below average income. It’s the “market,” however, that actually drives the price. Homes that sell for $650,000 may actually only cost $250,000 or $300,000 to build, based on their cost. But we don’t live in a system that restricts prices to the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Builders sell for the highest price the market will produce, and investment money outbids working families for housing all the time.

The truly big money for developers, though, comes from the increase in land value that occurs when a local government changes a land use designation at the request of a developer. Land that you can buy for $40,000 per acre as rural land becomes worth at least ten times that, per acre, if a landowner/developer can get three votes to rezone it. Check out what’s happening in San Benito and Monterey Counties, and you’ll see what I mean.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.